certainly be its own can of worms) has to be paid to the owner. Often this can be MORE than fair market value, especially if the government wants to avoid court or the project is time sensitive.

For instance, when reclaiming the abandoned "investment" properties, the new owners would pay for them. But in the mean time they could be financed by the city. I believe I read (or perhaps saw in the documentary The Vanishing City) that New York already does that...?

I'm not sure how abandoned properties or properties forfeited during criminal investigations work.

Property could also be repurchased from developers who failed to develop it, etc.

Investors generally sit on unoccupied investment properties because at present they could only be sold at a loss. They're not keeping them unoccupied for spite.

Properties seized in criminal investigations are a side effect of the drug war, we should largely be ending this practice, not expanding it.

the city would buy the unit back at market rate, thus it would not be a "loss" (except in some over-heated speculation fantasy). We have a different problem in this area, though. My understanding is that people overseas - primarily China - are buying properties because it's safer than putting money in a bank. There is also some trickiness about developing properties and getting visas for whole families in the process. So it's not a simple guns-and-butter economic equation for why 40% of the housing in the area is sitting empty in the face of an affordable housing crisis.

Regarding your drug war example - it seems like the answer to that would be to address the drug war, not to refuse to do anything with the properties. I'm simply suggesting they be used for housing rather than auctioned off to house-flippers.

Typical example: a couple in NY buy a condo in Miami in which to retire in 2005 for $500k. One of them loses their job in 2008, their property in NY is worth less so they can't afford to sell it and move, they can't afford to retire as soon as they planned, the place in Miami is worth a fraction of what they paid. They hold onto both properties in the hope that their value will recover enough to sell them for what they paid.

If forced to sell the Miami condo at even a generous current value the couple loses hundreds of thousands.

That's the story of a lot of vacant properties in the sun belt.

Rent the Miami one. That way it won't be vacant, and they will be earning extra income.

You're trying to find a simple solution to a complicated problem. You seem to think that nobody else cares or has thought about this, and that there's some simple, easy solution that's being ignored.

That's simply not the case.

I'm trying to find a solution to an enormous vacancy rate in an area with an affordable housing crisis. Perhaps the problem is complicated, but that doesn't mean the units should just be allowed to continue to sit there. People should be suggesting solutions.

that did something very similar to what you are talking about ... the proposal (in short) called for inspections of the absentee landlord housing stock in the ward where I lived. The absentee owners notified of all violations and provided a deadline for bring the housing up to code. In the meantime, the residents of the property placed their rental payments into a housing code account, that could be accessed by the owner only, by petition, and only to finance the housing repairs.

If the owner failed to bring the housing up to code within the court established deadline, the property was deemed "Blighted" and title taken by the court. Then, the occupant was given the option of moving, or to purchase the property for $1.00 and could assess the escrowed rental payments to bring the property up to code.

Once the property was up to code, the occupant petitioning the court for title.

It was presented to the City's Council; but, didn't get very far.

I heard a similar proposal yesterday that just prevented rent control raises for landlords that failed to make necessary repairs. I really like how your proposal gives people an option to become home owners and take charge of the property themselves.

Perhaps it just needed a flashy title: Slumlord Eradication and Affordable Housing Measure?